<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>

<!-- Mirrored from ffii.org/EPOReferral by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:46:01 GMT -->
<!-- Added by HTTrack --><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /><!-- /Added by HTTrack -->
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8">
<meta name="robots" content="index,nofollow">

<title>Brimelow Referral on Software Patents - FFII</title>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://ffii.org/static/common/js/common.js"></script>

<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
var search_hint = "Search";
//-->
</script>


<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="utf-8" media="all" href="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/css/common.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="utf-8" media="screen" href="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/css/screen.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="utf-8" media="print" href="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/css/print.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="utf-8" media="projection" href="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/css/projection.css">

<!-- css only for MS IE6/IE7 browsers -->
<!--[if lt IE 8]>
   <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" charset="utf-8" media="all" href="/static/sinorca4moin/css/msie.css">
<![endif]-->





<link rel="Start" href="https://ffii.org/Home">
<link rel="Alternate" title="Wiki Markup" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=raw">
<link rel="Alternate" media="print" title="Print View" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=print">
<link rel="Appendix" title="ASOLIF_ACB_g0308fin (2).pdf" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=ASOLIF_ACB_g0308fin+%282%29.pdf">
<link rel="Appendix" title="G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_ASOLIF_en.pdf" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_ASOLIF_en.pdf">
<link rel="Appendix" title="G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_FFII_de.pdf" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_FFII_de.pdf">
<link rel="Appendix" title="SWPat-FrOSCon2009.pdf" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=SWPat-FrOSCon2009.pdf">
<link rel="Appendix" title="g3-08_en.pdf" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=g3-08_en.pdf">
<link rel="Appendix" title="kiesewetter_acb_english.pdf" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=kiesewetter_acb_english.pdf">
<link rel="Search" href="https://ffii.org/FindPage">
<link rel="Index" href="https://ffii.org/TitleIndex">
<link rel="Glossary" href="https://ffii.org/WordIndex">
<link rel="Help" href="https://ffii.org/HelpOnFormatting">
</head>

<body  lang="en" dir="ltr">
<div id="header">
 <div class="superHeader">
  <div class="right">
<ul id="username"><li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=login" id="login" rel="nofollow">Login</a></li></ul>
  </div>
 </div>

<form id="searchform" method="get" action="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral">
<div>
<input type="hidden" name="action" value="fullsearch">
<input type="hidden" name="context" value="180">
<label for="searchinput">Search:</label>
<input id="searchinput" type="text" name="value" value="" size="20"
    onfocus="searchFocus(this)" onblur="searchBlur(this)"
    onkeyup="searchChange(this)" onchange="searchChange(this)" alt="Search">
<input id="titlesearch" name="titlesearch" type="submit"
    value="Titles" alt="Search Titles">
<input id="fullsearch" name="fullsearch" type="submit"
    value="Text" alt="Search Full Text">
</div>
</form>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--// Initialize search form
var f = document.getElementById('searchform');
f.getElementsByTagName('label')[0].style.display = 'none';
var e = document.getElementById('searchinput');
searchChange(e);
searchBlur(e);
//-->
</script>

 <div class="midHeader">
  <div id="locationline">
<div id="logo"><a href="https://ffii.org/Home"><img src="https://www.ffii.org/img/ffii-logos/ffii-logo-transparent.gif" width="85" height="98" alt="FFII logo"></a></div>
<a href="https://ffii.org/Home">FFII</a>
  </div>
 </div>
<div class="subHeader">
<b> <a href="https://www.ffii.org/">FFII</a> | <a href="https://action.ffii.org/">Action groups</a> | <a href="https://press.ffii.org/">Press releases</a> | <a href="http://www.ffii.fr/">FFII.fr</a> | <a href="http://www.ffii.de/">FFII.de</a> | <a href="http://www.ffii.se/">FFII.se</a>  | <a href="http://www.ffii.org.uk/">FFII.org.uk</a> </b>
</div>

</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<div class="sidepanel">
  <h1>Get Involved</h1>
  <ul class="editbar">
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://twitter.com/ffii/">Follow&nbsp;us&nbsp;on&nbsp;Twitter</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://blog.ffii.org/">Our&nbsp;Blog</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="https://ffii.org/Donations">Donate&nbsp;to&nbsp;FFII</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://members.ffii.org/register/">Become&nbsp;a&nbsp;member</a></li>
  </ul>
  <h1>Software Patents</h1>
  <ul class="editbar">
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="https://ffii.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_software_patents">FAQ</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://webshop.ffii.org/">Patented&nbsp;Webshop</a></li>
  </ul>
  <h1>Mailing Lists</h1>
  <ul class="editbar">
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/softwarepatents">Software-Patents</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/openstandards/">Open&nbsp;Standards</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/floss/">Free&nbsp;&&nbsp;Open&nbsp;Source</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/netreg/">Open&nbsp;Networks</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="https://ffii.org/https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/volunteers">Volunteers</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://lists.ffii.org/">More&nbsp;Lists</a></li>
  </ul>
  <h1>Association</h1>
  <ul class="editbar">
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="https://ffii.org/Mission">Mission</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="https://ffii.org/National_chapters">European&nbsp;chapters</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="http://blog.ffii.org/tag/press/">Press&nbsp;Releases</a></li>
    <li class="wikilink"><a href="https://ffii.org/Contact">Contact&nbsp;Office</a></li>
  </ul>
</div>

</div>

<div id="page" lang="en" dir="ltr">


<h1 id="title">Brimelow Referral on Software Patents</h1>
<div dir="ltr" id="content" lang="en"><span class="anchor" id="top"></span>
<span class="anchor" id="line-3"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-4"></span><p class="line867"><div class="table-of-contents"><p class="table-of-contents-heading">Contents<ol><li>
<a href="#What_Referral_G3.2F08_means">What Referral G3/08 means</a></li><li>
<a href="#Upcoming_and_recent_Events.2FTalks">Upcoming and recent Events/Talks</a></li><li>
<a href="#News">News</a></li><li>
<a href="#Current_Status">Current Status</a><ol><li>
<a href="#Questions:">Questions:</a></li><li>
<a href="#EPO_Summary_of_the_referral">EPO Summary of the referral</a></li><li>
<a href="#A2._DEFINITIONS">2. DEFINITIONS</a></li></ol></li></ol></div> <span class="anchor" id="line-5"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-6"></span><p class="line862">In short: <strong>The referral to the Enlarged Board of appeals is the most important substantive battle in Europe regarding software patents since the <span class="anchor" id="line-7"></span>Directive Proposal has been rejected by the European Parliament in 2005.</strong> <span class="anchor" id="line-8"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-9"></span><p class="line862">The FFII contacted a large number of associations, companies and individuals across Europe making clear the importance of the referral (see our press release <em><a class="http" href="http://press.ffii.org/Press releases/Software patents plot buried under amicus avalanche">Software patents plot buried under amicus avalanche</a></em>). The FFII submitted an Amicus Brief: <a class="attachment" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_FFII_de.pdf" title="attachment:G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_FFII_de.pdf">G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_FFII_de.pdf</a> (pdf, German) and wrote and helped for the submissions of others like ASOLIF (<a class="attachment" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_ASOLIF_en.pdf" title="attachment:G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_ASOLIF_en.pdf">G3-08_amicus_curiae_brief_ASOLIF_en.pdf</a>), a Spanish federation of 150 companies. <span class="anchor" id="line-10"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-11"></span><p class="line874">Nearly 100 such briefs have been filed by various organisations, institutions and individuals, which is unique in the history of the EPO and is Enlarged Board of Appeal. The complete list of all Amicus Briefs is at:  <span class="anchor" id="line-12"></span><a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/pending/briefs.html">http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/pending/briefs.html</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-13"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-14"></span><p class="line862">The FFII has also translated into English a very interesting statement submitted in German by a patent examiner at the German patent office. <a class="attachment" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=kiesewetter_acb_english.pdf" title="attachment:kiesewetter_acb_english.pdf">kiesewetter_acb_english.pdf</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-15"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-16"></span><p class="line862">The FFII is working on an analysis of the ACBs available at <a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral/Table">ACBs' analysis page</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-17"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-18"></span><p class="line867">
<h1 id="What_Referral_G3.2F08_means">What Referral G3/08 means</h1>
<span class="anchor" id="line-19"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-20"></span><p class="line862">In October 2008, the President of the European Patent Organisation, Alison Brimelow, issued four questions to the Enlarged Board Of Appeal at the European Patent Office. <a class="attachment" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=g3-08_en.pdf" title="attachment:g3-08_en.pdf">A copy of the original PDF can be found here.</a> Some very quick answers <span class="anchor" id="line-21"></span>to these questions (courtesy of Peter Gerwinski) are available <a class="http" href="http://ffii.org/EPOReferral-QuickAnswers">here</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-22"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-23"></span><p class="line874">The referral suffers a series of problems. The most important can be divided into the following groups: <span class="anchor" id="line-24"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-25"></span><ol type="1"><li><p class="line862">Selective, suggestive and misleading: The questions in the referral might seem clumsy or complicated at first, but on a closer look it is probably more likely they are suggestive and misleading on purpose. Some o the assertions are incomplete or simply wrong (e.g. that a product would not infringe a patent if the patent contains no explicit product claims). Like the decisions of the Boards of Appeal, the referral avoids to define the central and most vital core points of its subject (e.g. "technical", "technical effect", "further technical effect", "technical character") in any non-tautological way.  Some questions are so utterly suggestive that almost any answer implicitly has to agree with the same hidden assumptions the EPO bases its practise on or elaborate more meaningful definitions than the EPO did during the last 20 years. Furthermore, even the EPO <a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/referral/cii.html">admits</a> that the questions were eventually triggered by a dissatisfied UK court (in <a class="http" href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1371.html#para62">Aerotel</a>/<a class="http" href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/o07805.pdf">Macrosan</a>), but that court proposed much more open questions. So why haven't these questions been adopted or at least been reflected upon in the referral?  <span class="anchor" id="line-26"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-27"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line862">Institutional shortcomings: The Enlarged Board of Appeals is part of the European Patent Office, therefore an executive body. However its behaviour and effects are those of a court and even a de facto legislative power - there is no separation of powers. Even the EPO itself admits that the Boards of Appeal as well as the Enlarged Board of appeal are <a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legislative-initiatives/autonomy.html">not independent</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-28"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-29"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line862">Legalising the illegal: There already have been various attempts to legalise the EPO's practise of granting patents on software despite <a class="http" href="http://eupat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/">Article 52 (2) EPC</a>. After it became clear in 2000 that the diplomatic conference would not remove the exclusion of software patents from the EPC, a directive proposal was put forward on the EU level which was rejected by the European Parliament in 2005. Despite the diplomatic and democratic will being quite clear, the EPO is now asking itself to legalise its practise. And the questions referred to the EBoA all contain the same key points as the directive proposal (see below for further details).  <span class="anchor" id="line-30"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-31"></span></li></ol><p class="line867">
<h1 id="Upcoming_and_recent_Events.2FTalks">Upcoming and recent Events/Talks</h1>
<span class="anchor" id="line-32"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-33"></span><p class="line862">These are only events and talks regarding the EBoA referral. For other events, please check <a class="http" href="http://www.ffii.org/">ffii.org</a> and <a class="http" href="http://www.ffii.de/">ffii.de</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-34"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-35"></span><ul><li><p class="line862">On 23 August  2009, Georg Jakob gave a <a class="http" href="http://programm.froscon.org/2009/events/374.en.html">lecture</a> at the <a class="http" href="http://www.froscon.de/">Free Software and Open Source conference FrOSCon</a>, in Sankt Augustin, Germany. Check out the <a class="http" href="http://programm.froscon.org/2009/events/374.en.html">abstract in the FrOSCon programme</a> for more information. The <a class="attachment" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=AttachFile&amp;do=view&amp;target=SWPat-FrOSCon2009.pdf" title="attachment:SWPat-FrOSCon2009.pdf">Slides are available here</a> and a (yet uncut) <a class="http" href="http://ftp.stw-bonn.de/mirror/froscon/2009/prerelease_please_do_not_redistribute/so/hs12/2009_08_23_-_HS12_-_DE_-_Software_Patents_Today.ogg">video of the talk can be downloaded here</a> (attention, this is a direct link to a &gt;500MB file). <span class="anchor" id="line-36"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-37"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line862">On 26 June 2009, Georg Jakob gave a <a class="http" href="http://www.linuxtag.org/2009/de/program/freies-vortragsprogramm/freitag/vortragsdetails.html?talkid=581">talk</a> at the <a class="http" href="http://www.linuxtag.org/">Linuxtag in Berlin</a>, Germany. <span class="anchor" id="line-38"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-39"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line862">On 23 May 2009, <a class="http" href="http://patinfo.ffii.org/">Peter Gerwinski</a> gave a talk at <a class="http" href="http://sigint.ccc.de/">SIGINT</a> in Cologne, hosted by the <a class="http" href="http://ccc.de/">Chaos Computer Club</a>. More Information is available <a class="http" href="http://sigint.ccc.de/sigint/2009/Fahrplan/events/3257.en.html">here</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-40"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-41"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line862">On  24 April, Bernhard Kaindl gave a talk at the <a class="http" href="http://linz.linuxwochen.at/">Linuxwochen in Linz</a>, Austria, hosted by the <a class="http" href="http://www.ufg.ac.at/">University of Fine Arts in Linz</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-42"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-43"></span></li></ul><p class="line862">Past events, talks and materials are archived <a class="https" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral-TalksMaterials">here</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-44"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-45"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-46"></span><p class="line867">
<h1 id="News">News</h1>
<span class="anchor" id="line-47"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-48"></span><ul><li><p class="line862">On 2 June, <a class="http" href="http://www.heise.de/">Heise online</a> reported on the <a class="http" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/">U.S. Supreme Court</a> accepting to <a class="http" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/060109zor.pdf">hear the Bilski case</a>, also mentioning the referral <a class="http" href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Oberstes-US-Gericht-beraet-ueber-Patente-auf-Geschaeftsmethoden-und-Software--/meldung/139714">here</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-49"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-50"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line891"><a class="http" href="http://www.heise.de/">Heise online</a>, Germany's biggest online news site (approximately 21 Million readers/month) featured <a class="http" href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Lobbyschlacht-um-Softwarepatente-geht-in-neue-Runde--/meldung/138262">an article about the referral and the FFII submission</a> on 22 May which was the most-read article on that site for the following 3 days. <span class="anchor" id="line-51"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-52"></span></li></ul><p class="line862">More news regarding the FFII's involvement in the referral case will be archived <a class="https" href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral-News">here</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-53"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-54"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-55"></span><p class="line867">
<h1 id="Current_Status">Current Status</h1>
<span class="anchor" id="line-56"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-57"></span><p class="line874">The Enlarged Board of Appeal also called for submissions from third parties, so called Amicus Curiae documents. While the Enlarged Board of Appeal is no Court it issues "opinions" for the administrative practice on patent granting. The granting process is largely steered by the legal interpretations of the EPO Boards of Appeal, mere administrative opposition chambers composed of patent technocrats. Neither the political rejection of the proposed deletion of the software patent clause in the EPC in 2000 nor the rejected EU software patent pratice impressed the EPO much which acts high above checks and balances as a supranational body of its own. The EPO leaves it to its exployees to extend its competence to grant patents. The EPO centralises granting for many European states and European patents are a bundle of national patents. You can challegenge software patents in national court, often with success, but even professional national judges are drawn into acceptance of EPO "case law" gravitation and their dissent has no direct legal effect for the EPO - No national court or legislator can stop them from granting exclusive rights under national law, even the software patent directive in the parliament version would just have prevented enforcebility of the abusive EPO grants under national law. While it is expected that the Enlarged Board of Appeal would codify the ongoing patenting of computer programs by the EPO, it could well show a way out of the software market mess created by the BoA in the past without a political mandate to expand patentability.  <span class="anchor" id="line-58"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-59"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-60"></span><p class="line874">You find some background documentation to the case on the EPO server: <span class="anchor" id="line-61"></span><ul><li><p class="line891"><a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/referrals/pending.html">EPO: EBoA pending referrals, see G3/08</a>,  <span class="anchor" id="line-62"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-63"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line891"><a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20081024.html">24 Oct 08 EPO Press release "Patentability of programs for computers"</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-64"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-65"></span></li><li class="gap"><p class="line891"><a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/referral/submissions.html">EPO: Information on submissions</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-66"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-67"></span></li></ul><p class="line862">Several amicus briefs, <a class="http" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae">Amicus Curiae Briefs</a>, were already submitted, including: <a class="http" href="http://www.cipa.org.uk/pages/press/article?71F75B55-78CE-46A7-BED8-EE8F90CE60D2">CIPA</a>, <a class="http" href="http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/73BC38A8FB366767C125755900540B15/$File/G3-08_Philips_en.pdf">PHILIPS</a> (which bases its arguments for software patents on alleged TRIPs obligations) and <a class="http" href="http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/45D90730515B72FCC125757F005A2A43/$File/G308_Amicus_Curiae_Briefs_Jacob_Hallen_en.pdf">Jacob Hallen</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-68"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-69"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-70"></span><p class="line862">Please note that Amicus Curiae briefs are <strong>no consultations</strong> in the narrow sense but about <strong>legal arguments</strong> which is a fundamental constraint. Despite large societal and economical implications the chamber is not competent to take into account the "rationale of a market system"(Hayek) or the majority opinion in the software industry. It is very important to understand the administrative "case law" background of the questions and the circumvention decisions of the boards of appeal concerning the exclusion of software-related teachings (as well as algorithms, mathematics, music and other aesthetic creations etc) as not being inventions within the meaning of the EPC 52(2). Some followers of the debate are aware of the notorious "as such" teaching developed by the EPO boards of appeal and usurpative BoA decisions like <a class="http" href="http://eupat.ffii.org/papri/epo-t971173/">T1173/97 IBM- Computer Program Product</a>. <span class="anchor" id="line-71"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-72"></span><p class="line862">We are looking at ways to contribute to this process of the EPO, for instance based on our <a href="https://ffii.org/Clarifications">FFII's 10 core clarifications</a>, or the <a class="http" href="http://eupat.ffii.org/07/p2parl/epo/">two rules shorter version</a> and <a class="https" href="https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/boa">invite you to discuss the issue on our mailing list</a> with us. The quality of contributions from our side will rely on the quality of our research into the legal trick box of the patent sphere. <span class="anchor" id="line-73"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-74"></span><p class="line874">A deadline for our contributions is end of April but the decision of the EBOA can take much longer. <span class="anchor" id="line-75"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-76"></span><p class="line862">This wiki is just one workspace that was originally intended for the OCR. You need <a class="http" href="http://action.ffii.org/member_application">FFII membership</a> and login to edit comments on this wiki. Ask on polis-help at ffii.org to get one. There is also a <a href="https://ffii.org/referral">read-protected page</a> with references to different texts and we have <a class="https" href="https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/boa">a dedicated mailing list for you to help us: BOA</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-77"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-78"></span><p class="line862">If you rather want to contribute to <strong>political awareness raising</strong> about software patenting we suggest you to <a class="https" href="https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/softwarepatents/">join our softwarepatents mailing list</a>. As a side note you should be aware that the EPO is not politically neutral but massively intervenes into public deliberations for instance with their <a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/software.html">propaganda brochure</a>, by the award of inventor prices to software patent inventors or lobbying the European Parliament to pursue its commercial interests in software patenting. <span class="anchor" id="line-79"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-80"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-81"></span><p class="line867">
<h2 id="Questions:">Questions:</h2>
<span class="anchor" id="line-82"></span><p class="line867"><em> (quick premature observations from the OCR team that <a class="http" href="http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/B89D95BB305AAA8DC12574EC002C7CF6/$File/G3-08_en.pdf">extracted the text</a> in cursive, please <a class="http" href="http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/boa">discuss with us how you would answer the questions</a>) </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-83"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-84"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-85"></span><p class="line862">Q1 <a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferralQ1">CAN A COMPUTER PROGRAM ONLY BE EXCLUDED AS A COMPUTER PROGRAM AS SUCH IF IT IS EXPLICITLY CLAIMED AS A COMPUTER PROGRAM?</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-86"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-87"></span><p class="line867"><em> A1 No. Its just excluded as any such exclusion should be, implicitly. </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-88"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-89"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-90"></span><p class="line862">Q2 <a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferralQ2">CAN A CLAIM IN THE AREA OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS AVOID EXCLUSION UNDER ART. 52(2)(c) AND (3) MERELY BY EXPLICITLY MENTIONING THE USE OF A COMPUTER OR A COMPUTER-READABLE DATA STORAGE MEDIUM?</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-91"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-92"></span><p class="line867"><em> A2 No. That would be a very strange loop hole... </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-93"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-94"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-95"></span><p class="line862">Q3 <a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferralQ3">MUST A CLAIMED FEATURE CAUSE A TECHNICAL EFFECT ON A PHYSICAL ENTITY IN THE REAL WORLD IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM?</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-96"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-97"></span><p class="line867"><em> A3 Yes. That would be the meaning of the exclusions in art 52, as abstract things separated from real world. </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-98"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-99"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-100"></span><p class="line862">Q4 <a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferralQ4">DOES THE ACTIVITY OF PROGRAMMING A COMPUTER NECESSARILY INVOLVE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS?</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-101"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-102"></span><p class="line867"><em> A4 No. Computing by its own means, i.e balancing memory vs steps should not add patentability, since that is rules for organization and calculation alone.  </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-103"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-104"></span><p class="line867">
<h2 id="EPO_Summary_of_the_referral">EPO Summary of the referral</h2>
<span class="anchor" id="line-105"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-106"></span><p class="line874">(page 2) <span class="anchor" id="line-107"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-108"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-109"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-110"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-111"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-112"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-113"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-114"></span><pre>Even in the 1960s, as the founding fathers of the European Patent Office drafted a new
European patent law, it was clear that the patentability of computer programs was a
complex issue. Legislative attempts to change or clarify the law in this field have met with
more controversy than success, although Article 52 EPC was amended to state that
inventions ''' 'in all fields of technology' ''' are patentable, thus making an implicit requirement
explicit.</pre><span class="anchor" id="line-115"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-116"></span><p class="line867"><em> Where does Art 52 EPC state all fields of technology? </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-117"></span><em> see: <a class="http" href="http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ar52.html">http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ar52.html</a> </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-118"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-119"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-120"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-121"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-122"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-123"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-124"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-125"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-126"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-127"></span><pre>As the [:EPC] was drafted, the feeling was that it was better not to define the exclusion
precisely in law, but rather that the matter should be left in the hands of the [:EPO] and the
national courts. This flexibility is important as technology develops and new technologies
emerge. Nevertheless, to quote a working group in 1972: "it was stressed that a matter as
important as computer programmes should not be left in a state of prolonged uncertainty
pending legal developments"'. Diverging decisions of the boards of appeal have indeed
created uncertainty, and answers to the questions arising from these decisions are
necessary to enable the further, harmonious development of case law in this field.</pre><span class="anchor" id="line-128"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-129"></span><p class="line867"><em> And this uncertainty is due to EPO-praxis rendering the exclusions set in those days meaningless. </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-130"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-131"></span><p class="line867"><span class="anchor" id="line-132"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-133"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-134"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-135"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-136"></span><pre>Currently there are concerns, also '''expressed by national courts and the public''', that some
decisions of the boards of appeal have given '''too restrictive an interpretation of the breadth
of the exclusion'''. It is clear that the European Patent Office should have the leading role in
harmonising the practice of patent offices within Europe.</pre><span class="anchor" id="line-137"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-138"></span><p class="line867"><em> Too restrictive? The situation is just the opposite - restrictions have been called for world wide.  </em> <span class="anchor" id="line-139"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-140"></span><p class="line867"><span class="anchor" id="line-141"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-142"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-143"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-144"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-145"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-146"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-147"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-148"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-149"></span><pre>The four questions have been chosen to look at four different aspects of patentability in
this field. Firstly the relevance of the category of the claim is questioned. The next three
questions concern themselves with where the line should be drawn between those aspects
excluded from patentability and those contributing to the technical character of claimed
subject-matter: the second question concerns the claim as a whole; the third, individual
features of a claim; the fourth, relevant for defining the skills of the (technically) skilled
person, concerns the activity (programming) which underlies the resulting product
(computer program).</pre><span class="anchor" id="line-150"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-151"></span><p class="line867"><hr /><p class="line874"> <span class="anchor" id="line-152"></span><em> That translates into: <span class="anchor" id="line-153"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-154"></span><p class="line874">- Q1: Relevance of category (software exclusion at all?) <span class="anchor" id="line-155"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-156"></span><p class="line874">- Q2: As a whole...  <span class="anchor" id="line-157"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-158"></span><p class="line874">- Q3: features of a claim <span class="anchor" id="line-159"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-160"></span><p class="line862">- Q4: skill/technicality of a programmer</em> <span class="anchor" id="line-161"></span><hr /><p class="line874"> <span class="anchor" id="line-162"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-163"></span><p class="line867"><span class="anchor" id="line-164"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-165"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-166"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-167"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-168"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-169"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-170"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-171"></span><pre>It is hoped that the referral of these questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal will lead to
more clarity concerning the limits of patentability in this field, facilitating the application of
the law by examiners and enabling both applicants and the wider public to understand the
law regarding the patentability of computer programs according to the EPC.


1) 5th Meeting of the lnter-Governmental Conference for the Setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents, held on 24-25 January and 2-4 February 1972, BR/168 e/72 eld/KM/gc, p14,36</pre><span class="anchor" id="line-172"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-173"></span><p class="line867">
<h2 id="A2._DEFINITIONS">2. DEFINITIONS</h2>
<span class="anchor" id="line-174"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-175"></span><p class="line874">(page 3) <span class="anchor" id="line-176"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-177"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-178"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-179"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-180"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-181"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-182"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-183"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-184"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-185"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-186"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-187"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-188"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-189"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-190"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-191"></span><pre>A __computer program__ is a series of steps (instructions) which will be carried out by the
computer when the program is executed.


A __computer__ is understood to include not only devices which are generally thought of as
such, for example desktop PCs, but any programmable apparatus (such as a mobile
phone or an embedded processor).


The term 'computer program' ('program' for short) is synonymous with 'software' and a, 'program for a computer'.


For the purposes of this referral, the methods referred to in hypothetical examples are
intended to be methods which can be implemented wholly by computer.</pre><span class="anchor" id="line-192"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-193"></span><p class="line867"><strong>Do you have other legal and professional definitions about what computer programs, data processing and software are</strong>? Please <a class="https" href="https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/boa">let the members of our mailing list know?</a> <span class="anchor" id="line-194"></span><span class="anchor" id="line-195"></span><span class="anchor" id="bottom"></span></div><p id="pageinfo" class="info" lang="en" dir="ltr">EPOReferral  (last edited 2010-04-12 21:40:21 by <span title="Geza GIEDKE @ mpq3p10.mpq.mpg.de[130.183.93.10]"><a class="nonexistent" href="https://ffii.org/ggiedke" title="Geza GIEDKE @ mpq3p10.mpq.mpg.de[130.183.93.10]">ggiedke</a></span>)</p>

<ul id="iconbar">
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=edit" rel="nofollow" title="Edit"><img alt="Edit" height="12" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-edit.png" title="Edit" width="12" /></a></li>
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral" rel="nofollow" title="View"><img alt="View" height="13" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-show.png" title="View" width="12" /></a></li>
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=diff" rel="nofollow" title="Diffs"><img alt="Diffs" height="11" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-diff.png" title="Diffs" width="15" /></a></li>
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=info" rel="nofollow" title="Info"><img alt="Info" height="11" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-info.png" title="Info" width="12" /></a></li>
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=subscribe" rel="nofollow" title="Subscribe"><img alt="Subscribe" height="10" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-subscribe.png" title="Subscribe" width="14" /></a></li>
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=raw" rel="nofollow" title="Raw"><img alt="Raw" height="13" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-raw.png" title="Raw" width="12" /></a></li>
<li><a href="https://ffii.org/EPOReferral?action=print" rel="nofollow" title="Print"><img alt="Print" height="14" src="https://ffii.org/static/sinorca4moin/img/moin-print.png" title="Print" width="16" /></a></li>
</ul>

<div id="pagebottom"></div>
</div>

<div id="footer">
<ul id="credits">
<li><a href="http://moinmo.in/" title="This site uses the MoinMoin Wiki software.">MoinMoin Powered</a></li><li><a href="http://moinmo.in/Python" title="MoinMoin is written in Python.">Python Powered</a></li><li><a href="http://moinmo.in/GPL" title="MoinMoin is GPL licensed.">GPL licensed</a></li><li><a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer" title="Click here to validate this page.">Valid HTML 4.01</a></li>
</ul>


</div>
<p id="copyright_notice">Copyright (C) 2000-2015 FFII e.V.</p><p id="hosting_sponsor">Hosting sponsored by <a href="http://www.netgate.de/">Netgate</a> and <a href="http://www.init7.com/">Init Seven AG</a></p></body>

<!-- Mirrored from ffii.org/EPOReferral by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:46:01 GMT -->
</html>

